From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marsack v. Maedel

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jan 25, 2013
493 Mich. 926 (Mich. 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 145239. COA No. 291153.

2013-01-25

Paul MARSACK, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Claudia MAEDEL, Personal Representative of the Estate of Laura Gabriel, Defendant–Appellant, and Hastings Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant.


Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 1560355.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Sanilac Circuit Court for entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant Claudia Maedel. Because “MCR 2.102 does not provide the authority to issue a so-called ‘third’ summons,” Hyslop v. Wojjusik, 252 Mich.App. 500, 506, 652 N.W.2d 517 (2002), plaintiff's initial complaint “is deemed dismissed without prejudice” as to Maedel. MCR 2.102(E)(1). Because plaintiff did not file a new complaint until after the three-year statute of limitations expired, MCL 600.5805(10), and this action is not “commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person” to toll the statute of limitations pursuant to MCL 600.5852, defendant is entitled to summary disposition. MCR 2.116(C)(7).


Summaries of

Marsack v. Maedel

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jan 25, 2013
493 Mich. 926 (Mich. 2013)
Case details for

Marsack v. Maedel

Case Details

Full title:Paul MARSACK, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Claudia MAEDEL, Personal…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Jan 25, 2013

Citations

493 Mich. 926 (Mich. 2013)
825 N.W.2d 76